Just this week, the United States declared war on the sovereign nation authoritarian regime of Iraq, in contradiction of the Geneva Convention. On the grounds that the United States is a "sovereign" nation, Coalition forces started a campaign to eradicate Saddam Hussein's ruling party in Iraq.

The Geneva Convention, among other things, states that a country can't pre-emptively attack another sovereign nation. US President George W. Bush, in the eyes of the opposers of the war, went against the Convention when he invaded Iraq.

In my opinion, today's idea of a "sovereign" nation has to change. No country should be allowed to use the umbrella of sovereignity to blatantly break rules set in place by organizations like the United Nations. If these organizations want peace when the USA wants war, so be it: If a rule in the UN, or a convention that the USA has signed, prevents a war, don't go to war.

I think the UN is exactly what we need. Countries can choose wheter or not they want to be in the UN, but as long as they're in, they follow the rules or get punished. This does not only apply to wars, but to all rules and regulations carried trough by the organisations.

When I say have to, I mean have to. As in "this rule is against our interests, but we'll still follow it because we have to."

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Tie Guy

03-24-2003, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
they follow the rules or get punished.

Oh really? Iraq didn't follow the rules, they weren't going to get punished. Iraq had clear commands from the UN given directly to them that said disarm, they didn't. They were told to comply fully, they didn't. They were told to turn in documentation of weapons, they turned in a copy of an old one.

Now, they weren't punished for what they did/didn't do, or what rules they broke. Unless, that is, you consider stalling for them and putting in clearly ineffective inspectors for them to ruse a punishment.

I really don't see any reason why we should be "punished" for going to war when Iraq had had no "serious consequences" promised by 1441 before this war.

Besides, the entire point is null and void because 1441 gives us all the authorization we need, the security counsel unamiously approved it and no resolution has been signed preventing war. So what's the problem with us going to war, what are we breaking, really?

As for the other issue at hand, i do not think the United Nations should exist in a military or defense sense.

We are clearly seeing that a SC cannot make decisions for the good of a single country because sometimes countries have conflictiing interests. France, for on reason or another, does not want to take American interests into account, and will not go to war no matter what. And America has no interest for whatever it is that France wants to protect in protesting the war.

Therefore when an issue of individual interests arises in the national community, how can a group be expected to make a decision on war or peace?

The UN, i believe, should deal only with peacetime matters and leave the military decisions to individual and allied countries. Surely, whether you agree with war or not, you can accept that the UN just proved it's futility in dealing with matters of war. Why then continue to allow it's deception of usefulness to remain over our eyes and inhibit us further?

In other words, leave soverignty to countries. Those countries can make alliances and go to war as they please, granted they are willing to accpet the responsibilites and conseqences of such actions. No superpower truly wants war with anyone, so i think that any sort of World War can be eliminated from immediate concern. Other than that, countries can protect each other from agression through individual alliances and mutual interests without some overarching and useless body to make baseless resolutions it clearly does not always mean to keep.

pbguy1211

03-25-2003, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
The Geneva Convention, among other things, states that a country can't pre-emptively attack another sovereign nation.
Wasn't there a little something about not torturing POW's too?

In my opinion
Well, while we're all entitled to have our own opinions, that doesn't make them correct... besides... you know what they say about opinions... they're like ***holes... everyone has them and they all stink.

I think the UN is exactly what we need. Countries can choose wheter or not they want to be in the UN, but as long as they're in, they follow the rules or get punished. This does not only apply to wars, but to all rules and regulations carried trough by the organisations.
Right... we can't get our own government to agree on anything but we're supposed to get all the different countries in the U.N. to fully agree all the time? Come on now... you should know better.

Heavyarms

03-25-2003, 06:43 AM

Well, the Iraqi's have violated the same Geneva Convention, by showing US troops in disrespectible positions.

C'jais

03-25-2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by pbguy1211

Wasn't there a little something about not torturing POW's too?[/B]

Yes, your government just tortured two POWs to death.

pbguy1211

03-25-2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by C'jais
Yes, your government just tortured two POWs to death.
of course we did... [/sarcasm]

C'jais

03-25-2003, 11:22 AM

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL243253.htm

pbguy1211

03-25-2003, 12:08 PM

did you even read the article?
specifically the part that read: "But King said this did not mean the deaths were the result of criminal acts by U.S. personnel."
Can you let the investigation happen before you hang us?

Heavyarms

03-25-2003, 12:15 PM

he's right. If you read it, you'd know it sounds like they just punched each other to death. "Blunt Force."

Oh, and they happened over 3 months ago.

Tie Guy

03-25-2003, 12:30 PM

Well, nothing is sure in that article, we don't know the true causes of death, the motives, or the techniques that might have caused it. We have no clue if this violates the convention or not, and it is a single, isolated incident.

We have video footage flaunted by the Iraqis that show EXECUTED soldiers as well as brutally treated POWs. That is, unless you think all the soldiers were conviently shot in the middle of the forehead and nowhere else on the battlefield by accident.

Oh, and i'd like to get back on topic but something has been said cercerning it since i last posted.

C'jais

03-25-2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
did you even read the article?
specifically the part that read: "But King said this did not mean the deaths were the result of criminal acts by U.S. personnel."
Can you let the investigation happen before you hang us?

Think for a minute.

Camp delta is tightly guarded in the extreme. They're not gonna let the prisoners beat each other to death - it'd take several minutes and before that, the guards escorting the POWs would have intervened easily. Each cell is used by only one prisoners.

Did you really have no idea that your country tortures its most valuable prisoners as a standard procedure in interrogation. When they refuse to talk, they're shipped to Egypt (who have no qualms against extracting information in any possible way) and shipped back again along with the information.

Oh, and they happened over 3 months ago.

And your point is? That it doesn't matter?

pbguy1211

03-25-2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by C'jais
Camp delta is tightly guarded in the extreme. They're not gonna let the prisoners beat each other to death - it'd take several minutes and before that, the guards escorting the POWs would have intervened easily. Each cell is used by only one prisoners.
OH! I'm sorry! I didn't know you've been there before and were the foremost expert on the Afghan camps we have set up.
Don't be so quick to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

C'jais

03-25-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
OH! I'm sorry! I didn't know you've been there before and were the foremost expert on the Afghan camps we have set up.

They do let reporters in once in a blue moon, except they're not allowed to see the prisoners. But the cells, the insane security and the guards they're allowed to see.

It's an initiative they have taken to do what they feel is right. And since no "higher being" dishes out pamphlets on what is right and what is not, the best one can do is stand up for what they believe is right, instead of waiting for that presumably non-existant higher being.

In that way, I guess Saddam and Bin Ladin may justify their "righteousness", but the stronger one always ends up being "more right" because winners write history.

Given that, the best we can do is support the side whose cause you believe in more. And I know which cause I'm up for.

C'jais

03-25-2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by krkode
It's an initiative they have taken to do what they feel is right. And since no "higher being" dishes out pamphlets on what is right and what is not, the best one can do is stand up for what they believe is right, instead of waiting for that presumably non-existant higher being.

The best one can do is control those people whose power can kill millions of people. A safety grid of control should be mandatory, so that the powerful countries can't just run things the way they think it should be run.

Democracy and peace should be what's strived for, as it's proven time and time again that it's the two cores of a satisfied population.

Thus, given this premise, the UN should not be dismissed.

Heavyarms

03-25-2003, 03:16 PM

no, the UN should not be dismissed. But the security should, or at least the veto powers of certain countries. In fact, most likely those powers should, because the council should decide, not one country veto and that's that.

As for the dumb camp thing, those guys probably want suicide, and might do something even so stupid as slamming themselves in to the bars. There's something wrong when terror is used as a weapon.

pbguy1211

03-25-2003, 06:23 PM

ever heard of suicide by cop?
that could be the case here as well. not that i'm saying it was, just a possibility.

Dagobahn Eagle

03-25-2003, 06:37 PM

*Returns*
*Reads whole thread.*

Sigh.

Everyone, what do you want me to do, list every

TIE Guy, what you said on 1441 is all valid: But you know, if Iraq had followed UN Resolutions in the first place we would not have this dilemma, would we?

Personally, I think stating the acts of dictatorships as reasons why UN doesn't work isn't stating good examples, simply for the reason that Dictatorships do not care.

Iraq is still debated, and we are split on wheter or not it was right, so maybe it was a poor example on my end (1441 DOES give you the right to go to war, of course:)).

Pbguy, Heavyarms: This is not a thread to debate Iraq. What do you want me to do, list every violation ever commited to UN rules by any country? I didn't mean to be biased, okay?!

The point is, if you can't follow the rules of the UN, don't join. And we still want the UN. Of course it can't force dictatorships to follow instructions, but democracies should.

Oh really? Iraq didn't follow the rules, they weren't going to get punished.
I meant "in the world I'm proposing". Iraq wasn't going to be punished by the UN in the real world, but I didn't state so either. I'm afraid you misunderstood a bit, my rightist friend.

As for the other issue at hand, i do not think the United Nations should exist in a military or defense sense.

We are clearly seeing that a SC cannot make decisions for the good of a single country because sometimes countries have conflictiing interests. France, for on reason or another, does not want to take American interests into account, and will not go to war no matter what. And America has no interest for whatever it is that France wants to protect in protesting the war.

Therefore when an issue of individual interests arises in the national community, how can a group be expected to make a decision on war or peace?

The UN, i believe, should deal only with peacetime matters and leave the military decisions to individual and allied countries. Surely, whether you agree with war or not, you can accept that the UN just proved it's futility in dealing with matters of war. Why then continue to allow it's deception of usefulness to remain over our eyes and inhibit us further?

In other words, leave soverignty to countries. Those countries can make alliances and go to war as they please, granted they are willing to accpet the responsibilites and conseqences of such actions. No superpower truly wants war with anyone, so i think that any sort of World War can be eliminated from immediate concern. Other than that, countries can protect each other from agression through individual alliances and mutual interests without some overarching and useless body to make baseless resolutions it clearly does not always mean to keep.
I think the UN might have been wrong on that one.
Iraqi war is wrong... as long as there is an alternative.

If the UN really could make Saddam disarm all his weapons, fine. However, this would take really long, and that's why Bush wanted a war so badly. The key point is that the UN didn't recognize Iraq as a big threat. If they had, they may have voted for an invasion.

I think a better example is Afghanistan. It was recognized a threat after 9/11 (duh), and a lot of countries joined in to invade it.

I think the UN should remain, but it should be a bit less biased towards peace, which is not always the right answer (although I think it was for Iraq).

Tie Guy

03-25-2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Personally, I think stating the acts of dictatorships as reasons why UN doesn't work isn't stating good examples, simply for the reason that Dictatorships do not care.

That's clearly not the point. The point isn't that Iraq wasn't doing anything, for that's the be expected. The point is that the UN wasn't going to do anything about it?

You know the possible (likely) chemical weapons factory Coalition troops found? The UN inspectors had been to the city and they hadn't even checked it. A 180 acre facility in camoflogue that has at least the potential to make WMD agents and they didn't even look in the windows. What more do you need to show that inspectors were not the way to go?

There was clearly no other way to go (the inspectors were a stalling attempt from the very beginning, IMO, or at least after the first deadline), but still the UN planned to do nothing.

That is point, not that Iraq didn't comply.

JEDI_MASTA

03-25-2003, 08:33 PM

Is it just me or to be a sovereign nation dont the people actually hafta elect their officials?

pbguy1211

03-25-2003, 08:45 PM

well, they had an election... and saddam won legitimately getting all 100% of the votes! yeah! legitimate!

Dagobahn Eagle

03-25-2003, 09:15 PM

Is it just me or to be a sovereign nation dont the people actually hafta elect their officials?
In many sovereign nations people elect solely by party. Then, when a party wins the electoin, the party leader becomes President/State- or Prime Minister. While it results in less political freedom, it has the advantage of knowing educated people elected your leader :p.

Tie Guy

03-25-2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
In many sovereign nations people elect solely by party. Then, when a party wins the election, the party leader becomes President/State- or Prime Minister. While it results in less political freedom, it has the advantage of knowing educated people elected your leader :p.

Well, would you rather have random people running that the public new nothing about? Political parties ensure that a qualified and publicly known/exposed canidate is elected. I really don't have a problem with voting straight ticket Republican (when i'm able to vote, that is) because i know i can trust the party to nominate people that have roughly the same views as i do, at least more so than any other canidate that has a chance of winning.

Still, a nation can be "sovereign" without haveing elections, but sovereign simply means that they exercise their own control of what happens inside their country and outside matters dealing with their country.

Dagobahn Eagle

03-26-2003, 07:23 PM

Well, would you rather have random people running that the public new nothing about? Political parties ensure that a qualified and publicly known/exposed canidate is elected. I really don't have a problem with voting straight ticket Republican (when i'm able to vote, that is) because i know i can trust the party to nominate people that have roughly the same views as i do, at least more so than any other canidate that has a chance of winning.
I guess this topic is hopelessy off-topic, so I'll shoot. I guess this is interesting to you, as you seem heavily into politics.

You make a good assumption, based on the info I gave you, but you're wrong about one thing.

The people running our country are not random, unknown characters. They are "elected" annualy as party leaders in "elections" inside by the members of the party. The public perfectly well knows who the party leader of each political party.

For example: The leader of the SV party in Norway is Kristin Halvorsen. She just got rechosen as Party Leader a couple of months ago.

Also, in a way you can say people have several candidates for each cause, as we have 8 parties instead of 2. This means that if you're a right-wing and didn't like Bush, you could just vote for the other right-wing party (such as the right-wing Norwegian Labour Party instead of the Norwegian Right Wing Party).

You may ask why we choose to sacrifice political freedoms like we do. Well, the advantage I mentioned holds true: The people who choose the State Minister candidates choose them solely on political skills. In peoples' elections, it's been proven (trough surveys) that some people vote based on looks, gender, race, orientation, and so on. This is obviously a minority, but still.

The other obvious advantage is that you don't have to be in the high- or middle-class in order to become State Minister (because for obvious reasons there are no presidental campaigns).

I'm not questioning a 300 years+ old system. The Constitutional Monarchy, however, is almost as old (constitution signed in 1814), which should mean it works just as well.

Tie Guy

03-26-2003, 08:00 PM

But how can you get anything done with 8 parties. No one side would have the ability to pass legislation (assuming your "congress" works in similar fashion to the US's). Therefore multiple sides would have to come together to pass anything and every party would want to add or subtract or ammend something, no? Maybe it doesn't work this way in real life, but i just can't imagine anything getting done in a timely fashion unless it was something so basic that no one would object to it. I can just imagine if there were 8 parties in the US senate, with 12 or so for each party, and absolutely nothing would happen. One party could stall all legislation, and it would take so much inbetween work and bartering to get anything even to the floor. Too much chaos for me.

Why not just combine all the right-wing parties and all the left-wing parties? They all want basically the same thing, and people could still hold individual views inside a larger party, but it would be so much easier (it seems to me) to coordinate and implement legislation.

Heavyarms

03-27-2003, 06:37 AM

I'm gonna take a stab at this: Tie Guy they aren't like the US in that they vote close to party lines, I think they vote for what they want, because they still represent their parties, but there is more than one liberal and so on, so alliances and such in their parliament probably exist.

As you say though that what the US did was wrong, well, do I need to go tell you what Iraq did wrong? Instead of using a hospital as normal people do, they filled it with soldiers, 3000 chem suits, and had antidote vials for mustard gas. I don't think they have chemical weapons [/sarcasm]

Now for Soverignty: you are right, the definition of soverignty should change, as well as some things at the UN, particularly no more veto power, because in particular, the UN showed that a couple of members don't like something, but the rest do (most of the swing states were eventually for war, but no vote was called because of veto threats) which means things happen which everyone else wants to. Not a great system, IMO.

C'jais

03-27-2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Tie Guy
But how can you get anything done with 8 parties. No one side would have the ability to pass legislation (assuming your "congress" works in similar fashion to the US's).

I'm guessing it doesn't, though I'm not sure.

The last century, my country has had only minority governments, meaning that the parties in the government had less than 50% of all the mandates, which in turn means they couldn't pass legislation on one damn thing without counseling the opposing side.

Did we get anything done? Yes. More laws have been passed compared to your country. They're forced to cooperate, and thus forced to represent the entire political spectrum in my country.

So yes, we did get things done, in fact, more than your government. Then again, most of all the parties here are interested in preserving the welfare state so it makes things go a bit more smoothly. But we also have our fair share of rabid nationalists and communists (though they're in moderation compared to certain other countries).

C'jais

03-27-2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Heavyarms
Now for Soverignty: you are right, the definition of soverignty should change, as well as some things at the UN, particularly no more veto power, because in particular, the UN showed that a couple of members don't like something, but the rest do (most of the swing states were eventually for war, but no vote was called because of veto threats) which means things happen which everyone else wants to. Not a great system, IMO.

Ahem.

Again, lets bring up the facts for a change.

Your country has used its veto power over 70 times since WW2. France, which you claim stops UN decision making in its tracks, have used it 6 times.

38 times USA has used its veto power to prevent intervention against Israel's breaking of UN resolutions.

Say again?

C'jais

03-27-2003, 10:14 AM

Americans do things their own way. (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/blankley.htm )

The Irish do things their way. (http://www.liebreich.com/LDC/HTML/Opinion/TimCollins.html)

Happily, rumours of growing pessimism have been proved wrong. (http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html)

And if all else fails, you can always make your own UN, now that the old has been rendered defunct. (http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/us_forms_own_un.html)

Crazy_dog no.3

03-27-2003, 01:57 PM

Myself, I like soveriegn nations. But that doen't mean I agree with a given war.

Heavyarms

03-27-2003, 03:37 PM

yeah, but I'm ready to give up that power, that power brought around as much hate against the Americans. Oh, it didn't? Let's see... France,Russia,Germany, and China were the main 4 nations against the war, and might have been the only 4. The US, Spain, and GB had enough votes to win support for war, except they were afraid of a veto. If a vote had been won, there wouldn't be protesters. I think Bush would give up some power, I don't think he is on a power trip with the presidency. (enter c'jais to try to prove to me the president is on a power trip.)

Breton

03-27-2003, 03:45 PM

They would not be able to get the 9 votes they needed, and that is why they didn't bother to start the voting. There are many more countries opposing the war, and all over Europe, the people are opposing the war.

BTW, Russia, China and Germany were the three countries who suffered most from WW2.

Heavyarms

03-27-2003, 03:54 PM

yeah, so I guess what I hear in the US from the media is complete and utter Bullsh*t, isn't it? I was told we were only one vote away. Ya know, I could be wrong, maybe you have heard different.

C'jais

03-27-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Heavyarms
I was told we were only one vote away. Ya know, I could be wrong, maybe you have heard different.

You were one vote away because you bullied, threatened and bought the loyalty of many security council members.

I guess the US media didn't tell you this either.

Heavyarms

03-27-2003, 04:10 PM

that's funny, c'jais, I didn't know you tapped the presiden't phone line. I don't know how you got that load of BS.

C'jais

03-27-2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Heavyarms
that's funny, c'jais, I didn't know you tapped the presiden't phone line. I don't know how you got that load of BS.

Through the European media, perhaps?

And please drop that hostile attitude right now.

Heavyarms

03-27-2003, 04:29 PM

So I guess Cnn and Sky News are now just lying political tools, huh, C'Jais?

And don't tell me ever to lose my attitude.

Artoo

03-27-2003, 05:57 PM

@ Qui-Gon

Japan

@ Heavyarms

I ask you to do 2 things, take the chip off your shoulder, and take a deep breath, getting an attitude about it only weakens your arguments, I should know this one from experience.

@ Discussion

I'm personnally done debating over the war with Iraq. It's already happening, vote or no. Yes the US most-likely was "persuading" countries to vote pro-war, but the even if it did pass the veto most likely would have come. But the time was right, so the coalition went in. All you can do now is support the quick end of a dictatorship, and help clean up afterwards.

On the cleaning up note, after the war has already been fought France has agreed to take the lucrative rebuilding contracts in Iraq fo itself to help out.

They're a huge help offering to take care of the big-money deals that offer maximum profit with little input into the war effort.

Dagobahn Eagle

03-27-2003, 06:27 PM

But how can you get anything done with 8 parties.
Yes, actually a lot gets done with 8 parties, although I agree, it should be more like 3 or 4 parties, not necessarily 8?

Heavyarms (I think) is right in assuming that our parties ally and cooperate.

So I guess Cnn and Sky News are now just lying political tools, huh, C'Jais?
11News and at least one other channel which name I have now forgotten are biased. This is a fact.

Now with that out of the way, let's get back on topic.

Breton

03-27-2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Artoo
@ Qui-Gon

Japan

Japan didn't lose nearly as much as the countries I listed.

German losses: 3-5 million soilders, 2-4 million civillians.

Chinese losses: 1,3 million soilders, 10 million civillians

And on top of the list: Russian losses: 7 million soilders, 7-13 million civillians

Behind these three countries comes Poland, with 350 000 military losses and 5-6 million civillian losses.

Then comes Jugoslavia with 400 000 ML and 1.0-1.4 CL

Then comes Japan, 1.0-1.3 ML, 300,000 CL

Then comes Romania, with 520,000 ML and 465,000 CL

Breton

03-27-2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
11News and at least one other channel which name I have now forgotten are biased. This is a fact.

Were you thinking about Fox News too? Don't know what 11News is, but Fox News are not to be trusted, as they are buddies with Bush and extremely biased.

Artoo

03-27-2003, 08:04 PM

Nice double-post BTW.

Anyway you thing CNN and can be trusted? They are in cohorts with the liberals and extremely biased.

If you thought the above statement was ridiculous, you now know how I felt about your statement about FoxNews. FoxNews is targeting a republican audience, the audience that until it had no news that gave things a conservative slant. They are merely doing the same thing as CNN except CNN gives theirs a liberal slant.

There is not a news station out there that does not put it's spin on what's happening, it's what makes it worth watching, they are competing for a thing called ratings ya know. So if you want the facts, watch both and divide the opinions down the middle.

Personally my heroes are Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Shepard Smith, but to each his own as the slogan goes.

Also now I have reason for people not to riot peacefully demosntrate in America at least. It's a threat to the nation. Police forces are having to detain people who get out of hand in the riots instead of devoting themselves to looking for terror threats.

Any opinion on that?

Breton

03-28-2003, 08:35 AM

Personally, my opinion is that CNN is actually pretty Bush-friendly. FoxNews, however, is little more than Republican and Bush-supporting propaganda. I went to their website, and it's at least as bad as I thought, if not worse. Each single article supports the war, none of them critizise it, and they make a very false view of stuff. I mean, FoxNews even have their own show where a guy goes and talks crap about Germany and France. That is extremely childish, to bash them just because they don't agree with you.

Nearly all of the France-bashers here doesn't know anything about their opinions anyway. For your information, they aren't directly anti-war, they just think the UN inspectors should be able to continue their work on disarming Saddam, as the weapon inspectors asked for themselves. Now, after 12 years, the working on disarming Saddam is finally getting results, but then US comes and ruins it all.

Crazy_dog no.3

03-28-2003, 12:04 PM

Although u must admit, it was thanks to US pressure that the whole disarming thing started.

Tie Guy

03-28-2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Personally, my opinion is that CNN is actually pretty Bush-friendly. FoxNews, however, is little more than Republican and Bush-supporting propaganda. I went to their website, and it's at least as bad as I thought, if not worse. Each single article supports the war, none of them critizise it, and they make a very false view of stuff. I mean, FoxNews even have their own show where a guy goes and talks crap about Germany and France. That is extremely childish, to bash them just because they don't agree with you.

I suppose you are talking about Bill O'Reilly. He's not even a Republican, he's a registered independent.

Oh, and i've heard plenty of reports, from FoxNews, CNN, and others that the news in France, for instance, has almost nothing but anti-war stories, and that is coming from reporters in France. A BBC reporter even admited and chastised the BBC for putting an extreme anti-war slant on one of his reports. Maybe you don't want to trust American news stations, but i'm willing to bet it's mostly because you are only watching European news stations. It certainly works in reverse for my case.

Nearly all of the France-bashers here doesn't know anything about their opinions anyway. For your information, they aren't directly anti-war, they just think the UN inspectors should be able to continue their work on disarming Saddam, as the weapon inspectors asked for themselves. Now, after 12 years, the working on disarming Saddam is finally getting results, but then US comes and ruins it all.

Like CDog said, the US made the progress happen. The inspectors were getting nowhere until 280,000 coalition troops entered the area. Coincidence? I think not. It was all just a time game, a delay tactic, he wasn't really giving up anything major at all.

Heavyarms

03-28-2003, 03:28 PM

Now, after 12 years, the working on disarming Saddam is finally getting results, but then US comes and ruins it all.

Yeah, um... they did have twelve years, right? And the US put the pressure to try to get him out, but it was just one big delay tactic, anyone will tell you that.

Breton

03-28-2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Oh, and i've heard plenty of reports, from FoxNews, CNN, and others that the news in France, for instance, has almost nothing but anti-war stories, and that is coming from reporters in France. A BBC reporter even admited and chastised the BBC for putting an extreme anti-war slant on one of his reports. Maybe you don't want to trust American news stations, but i'm willing to bet it's mostly because you are only watching European news stations. It certainly works in reverse for my case.

But the difference between USA and Europe is that USA is one nation, Europe is lots of nations, and therefore loads of different news channels, so there is few here who watches very much BBC, and no one are watching French news channels. And if you absolutly want to know, our goverment has not taken any real stand in the Iraq-case, but they won't support in the war unless approved by UN. So I guess the gov's pretty neutral. Anyway, there are two main tv channels, NRK and Tv2. Tv2 is pretty neutral in the case, while NRK is slightly more Bush-supporting. Of course, I also read the papers. You have BT, wich is a tiny bit against war, but not much. Then there is VG, wich is much more positive to Bush and war. And also Dagbladet, wich I don't really know.

Like CDog said, the US made the progress happen. The inspectors were getting nowhere until 280,000 coalition troops entered the area. Coincidence? I think not. It was all just a time game, a delay tactic, he wasn't really giving up anything major at all.

It was partly because of the military pressure. But the inspections were getting somewhere, Blix said so himself. He also said that it wasn't any minor weapons that had been destroyed.

Anyway, now UNICEF have reported that 100,000 children below 5 years are in danger of dying of malnutrition, diarrhea and dehydration in Basra because the fights have cut the power and the water supplies. Wich proves my point about civillians doesn't die of bombs in wars, but of other things.

Artoo

03-28-2003, 06:38 PM

@ Qui-Gon

Hmmmmm, I see what you mean about bashing something that doesn't agree with you. (FoxNews)

And you say nearly all don't know why they have their opinions, well I know why I have mine, and I've stated it already in other threads as much as you'd like to think me ignorant, I'm not.

Also as previously stated, 11 years... nothing was found, all of a sudden he has pressure put on him by the Coalition, and a few small things start to appear. Hmmmmmmmm... why didn't they appear before I ask you.

Also if you think the UN inspectors were doing a good job, no less than 3 days ago, Coalition forces captured a "supposed" chemical weapons facility in southern Iraq. If they were doing such a good job, why didn't the inspectors find in 12 years what the Coalition forces took merely a week to get to.

And guess what the first thing coalition forces are doing when they get into areas like that? They are handing out food, water, and supplies to the needy. The first person treated on the battlefield in the first battlefield hospital was an Iraqi soldier for crying out loud, this is unheard of. If children are dying it is because of the Saddam regime, not because of what the Coalition is doing.

@ Debate

Have you heard of what is on the front page of both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times? Front page articles talking about the horrors of the war. How the US troops are encountering fierce resistance. And also the Los Angeles Times printed an interview they had with a Saddam appointed translator in the city, how the war is sooo horrible, and things are sooo bad, and you know what was in the background of her picture? Coalition forces handing out supplies with people flocking to them.

They might as well have had an interview with the Saddam propaganda machine itself, can we at least sell them the space instead of letting them spread their propaganda for free?

Tie Guy

03-28-2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
It was partly because of the military pressure. But the inspections were getting somewhere, Blix said so himself. He also said that it wasn't any minor weapons that had been destroyed.

Can you really expect anyone to admit their own futility? Especially when Blix was the one being fooled and led around. Of course he thought the inspections were working, because he has an inate desire to validate his own existance and job. If the inspections fail, he fails, and he doesn't want that. Plus, he's clearly an anti-war advocate, he's said so many times in numerous interviews. Can you really expect a unbiased opinion out of him, especially on such a subjective matter?

pbguy1211

03-28-2003, 08:14 PM

Looks at profile...
Don't bad mouth Uncle Rupert! ;)

Breton

03-28-2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Artoo
@ Qui-Gon

Hmmmmm, I see what you mean about bashing something that doesn't agree with you. (FoxNews)

A news channel is supposed to be neutral. FoxNews is biased, no one doubts about that.

The first victim of a war is the thruth.

Also as previously stated, 11 years... nothing was found, all of a sudden he has pressure put on him by the Coalition, and a few small things start to appear. Hmmmmmmmm... why didn't they appear before I ask you.

Let me remind you that the missiles weren't directly opposing 1441. They had a range below the premitted, but they could be modified for a longer range, wich is why they had to be destroyed.

Also if you think the UN inspectors were doing a good job, no less than 3 days ago, Coalition forces captured a "supposed" chemical weapons facility in southern Iraq. If they were doing such a good job, why didn't the inspectors find in 12 years what the Coalition forces took merely a week to get to.

Because this chemical weapon facility probably doesn't excist? Just think of it: The only ones who have reported this news are the Bush-friendly ones. There seemingly excists no footage or pictures from it. Why do you assume it excists when there is little that leads towards it?

And guess what the first thing coalition forces are doing when they get into areas like that? They are handing out food, water, and supplies to the needy.

But why do they need food anyway? Because there is war. And the Iraqis also very much dislike the way US is handing out the supplies. For one thing, there is too little of them. And the supply they have, they throw out to the Iraqis as if they were dogs, so that the people have to fight over the little food there is.

Have you heard of what is on the front page of both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times? Front page articles talking about the horrors of the war. How the US troops are encountering fierce resistance. And also the Los Angeles Times printed an interview they had with a Saddam appointed translator in the city, how the war is sooo horrible, and things are sooo bad, and you know what was in the background of her picture? Coalition forces handing out supplies with people flocking to them.

They might as well have had an interview with the Saddam propaganda machine itself, can we at least sell them the space instead of letting them spread their propaganda for free?

So you think we should hear all that Bush has to say, but nothing that Saddam has to say? That is propaganda in itself, if you cannot hear two sides in a debate.

Can you really expect anyone to admit their own futility?

If the Iraqis weren't cooperating at all, he would have said so. Tell me one good reason not to belive him. Anyway, it's not only him, but over a hundred inspectors.

Of course he thought the inspections were working, because he has an inate desire to validate his own existance and job.

So you are saying he lied to the SC to keep his job? Riiiiight.......for your information, there is nothing that indicates that he and hundreds of others have lied to the SC. Their job isn't to disarm Saddam, their job is to see if he will disarm or not. They have absolutly nothing to gain by lying. There is, however, evidence that Colin Powell have lied to the SC. Much of the information he gave the SC has been proven false. And if it is that you say that Blix only care about his job, why is it then that he does not want to renew his contract?

Plus, he's clearly an anti-war advocate, he's said so many times in numerous interviews.

Gotten your information from FoxNews again, eh? Actually, Blix is neutral. He is critical against both parts, just as he should be.

Can you really expect a unbiased opinion out of him, especially on such a subjective matter?

Yes, for of serveral reasons:

1. He is neutral
2. There is no indications that he has lied. We have evidence that Saddam destroyed those missiles.
3. He has nothing to gain by lying.
4. He hasn't lied about weapon inspections in the past.
5. He critizises Iraq too, you know.
6. He is professional.

So now you can give me some good reason on why not to trust him ;)

Tie Guy

03-28-2003, 09:38 PM

First of all, Qui-Gon, i get my news from a variety of sources including ABC, CNN, and FoxNews, as well as my local newspaper. And i'm not basing what i said on Blix on any report on him, just on what i've heard in interviews. He clearly and directly stated that the war was uneccessary and unfortunate, and that he wishes he had more time, which of course he would because that's his job and he wants to be important and sucessful, and why shouldn't he?

Secondly, i never said he lied to the SC, i'm merely saying that you can't take his opinion on things as fact. He clearly has a bias towards himself and the inspection process, and is, IMO, overly optimistic about the process. His former boss, I heard in an interview on CNN, said that Blix was a "blind fool" and naive, as well as totally incompetant in finding weapons. No lie, that's from the mouth of a guy who worked with Blix for 40 years. Not a good thing when your long-time friend and boss says you are imcompetant, nor does it help your credibility.

Oh, and the chemical wepaons facility doesn't need to exist. Whether it does or not (which is still uncertain), the inspectors and the UN didn't even know about it. Now, this potential chemical weapons facility is in a Iraq and the inspectors don't even look at it? They were even in the city and didn't give it a second glance. Oh, and it's 180 acres, hardly mistakable. Even if it's not a facility, the fact that they didn't even check it proves the same thing--wepaons inspectors can never be fully effective over such a large area with an unwilling host.

pbguy1211

03-28-2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
A news channel is supposed to be neutral. FoxNews is biased, no one doubts about that.

The first victim of a war is the thruth.
Have you seen or heard some of the lies being reported on the arabian networks? al-jazeera, iraqi tv etc... talk about a bunch of crap.

Could you explain how the fox news coverage is currently differing from cnn's or anyone else's right now?

Artoo

03-28-2003, 11:56 PM

A news channel is supposed to be neutral. FoxNews is biased, no one doubts about that.

The first victim of a war is the thruth.

Yes news channels are supposed to be neutral, but if you actually read my post you'd know that I said that NO news channel is neutral. All put their slant on it one way or another. It's what gets ratings.

And yes, sadly, as the liberal media has taught us, the first victim of the war is the truth. Our soldiers who advanced and fought bravely through the sandstorm that covered the region, were labeled as "Coalition troops encountered gruesome fighting in the region today. It's a sad, sad affair going on in Iraq." That is what you call slant.

Because this chemical weapon facility probably doesn't excist? Just think of it: The only ones who have reported this news are the Bush-friendly ones. There seemingly excists no footage or pictures from it. Why do you assume it excists when there is little that leads towards it?

No this one was from CNN actually, my dad insists on having it on primetime, the LIBERAL media. Un-Bush friendly. There are plenty of recon photos of it, I flipped to Foc and they did one of their recon map flybys of it, and there it was. Oh yes and the general which was in charge of this facility, he's talking to us. Apparently he's authorized to use chemical weapons. The question I ask you is, How can you use chemical weapons you don't have?

But why do they need food anyway? Because there is war. And the Iraqis also very much dislike the way US is handing out the supplies. For one thing, there is too little of them. And the supply they have, they throw out to the Iraqis as if they were dogs, so that the people have to fight over the little food there is.

Sounds just like a liberal, what would you rather us do, not give them anything at all? If I were a country not participating in relief efforts for the Iraqi citizens during the war, I'd shut-up concerning countries who are.

So you think we should hear all that Bush has to say, but nothing that Saddam has to say? That is propaganda in itself, if you cannot hear two sides in a debate.

No. Anything that comes out of his mouth is Propaganda, especially concerning the US. Actually listening to his would be propaganda in itself. There is no debate to war.

So you are saying he lied to the SC to keep his job? Riiiiight.......for your information, there is nothing that indicates that he and hundreds of others have lied to the SC. Their job isn't to disarm Saddam, their job is to see if he will disarm or not. They have absolutly nothing to gain by lying. There is, however, evidence that Colin Powell have lied to the SC. Much of the information he gave the SC has been proven false. And if it is that you say that Blix only care about his job, why is it then that he does not want to renew his contract?

He didn't lie, he just gave his opinion, which was severely biased in his favor. People generally like to have a purpose, if there are no more inspections, then he has no purpose, and therefore no job, and he slips out of the world spotlight. Who would want that?

Once again, I implore people to read each word in everyone else's post so as to be properly informed for your responses to statements.

SkinWalker

03-29-2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Tie Guy
First of all, ... He clearly and directly stated that the war was uneccessary and unfortunate, and that he wishes he had more time, which of course he would because that's his job and he wants to be important and sucessful, and why shouldn't he?

Perhaps he thought there was still a mission to be accomplished and much left to do. Importance and success do fullfil the innate needs of status for many of us, but we cannot assume so in this case. It may well be that Blix genuinely believed he was doing the right thing.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Secondly, ... His former boss, I heard in an interview on CNN, said that Blix was a "blind fool" and naive, as well as totally incompetant in finding weapons. No lie, that's from the mouth of a guy who worked with Blix for 40 years. Not a good thing when your long-time friend and boss says you are imcompetant, nor does it help your credibility.

Actually, Blix worked for Per Ahlmark in 1960.... not necessarily for "40 years." Per Ahlmark is also a very dedicated sympathizer of the Jewish plight. That tends to make him a bit biased in matters concerning the fate of Saddam. Thus, making his comment invalid.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Oh, and the chemical wepaons facility doesn't need to exist. Whether it does or not (which is still uncertain), the inspectors and the UN didn't even know about it.

This is what CNN had to say on 3/24: "I will not confirm that report," said Army Lt. Gen. John Abizaid. "We have an Iraqi general officer -- two Iraqi general officers -- that we have taken prisoner, and they are providing us with information."

This is what the As-Saliyah News Service in Qatar had to say on 3/27: AS-SALIYAH (Qatar) March 27 - One week into their campaign in Iraq, US and British forces have yet to uncover any weapons of mass destruction but remain convinced that such weapons are there and will be found.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Now, this potential chemical weapons facility is in a Iraq and the inspectors don't even look at it? They were even in the city and didn't give it a second glance. Oh, and it's 180 acres, hardly mistakable.

Easily understood. Iraq consists of 171,599 square miles of land. I would suggest that there are many hundreds of acres of land that go unseen in your own city/region. The inspectors can only operate under the intelligence they've received. Intelligence was one thing that they actually did not get a full picture of from the American sources since the Bush admin did not want them to succeed. If Blix and his crew were perceived as successful, then that would add to the reasons why not in going to war.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
Even if it's not a facility, the fact that they didn't even check it proves the same thing--wepaons inspectors can never be fully effective over such a large area with an unwilling host.

We'll never know. But one thing is for sure: the precedent of preemptive strikes on non-democratic nation-states will be a spector not soon forgotten.

SkinWalker

03-29-2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Artoo
Sounds just like a liberal, ...

And that sounds just like the facist, right-wing answer to those who disagree with republican ideaology.

There is nothing wrong with being "liberal." In fact, I challenge you to name a domestic program that has benefited society in America that wasn't initiated by a "liberal" adminstration.

Food and Drug admin, Social Security, Medicare, USDA, etc.

ShadowTemplar

03-29-2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by C'jais
Democracy and peace should be what's strived for, as it's proven time and time again that it's the two cores of a satisfied population.

I've got an interesting article on this exact subject, published by Scientific American (www.sciam.com). Unfortunately I can't seem to be able to find it on the www (but of course they don't put everything there, that would be very bad business). According to this article Soviet Scandinavistan (Scandinavia, including Iceland) was the happiest place on the planet...

Originally posted by C'jais
Thus, given this premise, the UN should not be dismissed.

The UN, in its current form is useless. It has failed miserably to ensure the division of power (it all ended up in the US for some reason).

no, the UN should not be dismissed. But the security should, or at least the veto powers of certain countries

More specifically the US. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95169)

Personally, I think stating the acts of dictatorships as reasons why UN doesn't work isn't stating good examples, simply for the reason that Dictatorships do not care.

Hmm... If you could prove the inverse correlation to be just as true, then it would say quite a bit about the USA...

Of course it can't force dictatorships to follow instructions

They can. They can veto a 'war' resolution, meaning that the dictatorship is fair game for invasion.

That's clearly not the point. The point isn't that Iraq wasn't doing anything, for that's the be expected. The point is that the UN wasn't going to do anything about it?

While this really belongs in an Iraq thread:

I made the following considerations regarding Iraq (these are of course entirely subjective):

Premise # 1: Saddam should be toppled. If by military action, then so be it.

Premise # 2: The Arab world is gonna be pissed off by having more US troops in the area.

Conclusion: The gain from the action dictated by Premise # 1 is far less than the loss from the consequense dictated by Premise # 2. Therefore to attack now would be stupid in the extreme.

What I want to say here is that most pro-war people seem to forget Premise # 2, which, IMO, makes their statements look rather unnuanced.

pbguy1211

03-29-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Artoo
Personally my heroes are Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Shepard Smith, but to each his own as the slogan goes.
Shep rules!

ShadowTemplar

03-29-2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm not questioning a 300 years+ old system. The Constitutional Monarchy, however, is almost as old (constitution signed in 1814), which should mean it works just as well.

'Cept that the constitutional monarchy is based on an archaic tradition (yeah, I know that Denmark is, technically, a monachy, but for all of the regent's influence we might as well be a republic... All she does is keep the tabloid press alive.

But how can you get anything done with 8 parties. No one side would have the ability to pass legislation (assuming your "congress" works in similar fashion to the US's).

I don't think that Denmark has had more than two Majority Governments (where the Minister of State has the support of more than half of the parlament) in the entire 150-year history of our democracy. However we do have a rule that says that no Minister of State can remain in office if more than half of the parlament has 'no-confidence' in him/her.

Therefore multiple sides would have to come together to pass anything and every party would want to add or subtract or ammend something, no?

Correct. That's called finding a compromise.

Maybe it doesn't work this way in real life, but i just can't imagine anything getting done in a timely fashion unless it was something so basic that no one would object to it.

This is where the major drawback of our system shows through: Every time you want to do something, you have to accumulate a majority in the parlament. This means that there'll be a lot of horse-trading in the corridors. One of the more infameous examples of this is the connection between the building of Storebæltsbroen and "Den Jyske Motorvejsmafia"

I can just imagine if there were 8 parties in the US senate, with 12 or so for each party, and absolutely nothing would happen. One party could stall all legislation, and it would take so much inbetween work and bartering to get anything even to the floor.

Aah. Every party has a veto right in your senate? That goes a lot of way to explaining a lot of things... Well there's no such thing as veto rights in the Danish parlament (well, officially the Regent has veto rights, but you can have a guess at how quickly we'd be a Republic if Her Majesty started using them).

Why not just combine all the right-wing parties and all the left-wing parties? They all want basically the same thing, and people could still hold individual views inside a larger party, but it would be so much easier (it seems to me) to coordinate and implement legislation.

Because having several smaller parties in each 'bloc' means that the voters get a more direct influence on the stands of the blocs.

most of the swing states were eventually for war,

*Coughblackmailcough*

except CNN gives theirs a liberal slant

If by "liberal" you mean "left-wing" then we have differing definitions of "left-wing"...

So if you want the facts, watch both and divide the opinions down the middle.

Soo, in order to get facts more your way you just have to spin you data faster?[/harmless satire]

Can you really expect a unbiased opinion out of him [Hans Blix], especially on such a subjective matter?

Yeah, I can, because he has the entire fething SC ready to fry his butt if he's caught lying.

Have you seen or heard some of the lies being reported on the arabian networks? al-jazeera, iraqi tv etc... talk about a bunch of crap.

Lemme see what we have here:

We've got multiple reporters in Iraq, each one reporting independently that Al-Jazeera is much, much closer to the facts than any Western media. For two reasons: Al-Jazeera reporters can move more freely, because they don't seem out of place, and Western media self-censor because they don't believe that we can stummach the real pictures... And they are probably right.

Anything that comes out of his [Hussein's] mouth is Propaganda, especially concerning the US. Actually listening to his would be propaganda in itself.

So is anything that comes out of Bush's mouth. And both el Prez' are so transparent that they would be amusing if they weren't directing military forces...

pbguy1211

03-29-2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Lemme see what we have here:

We've got multiple reporters in Iraq, each one reporting independently that Al-Jazeera is much, much closer to the facts than any Western media. For two reasons: Al-Jazeera reporters can move more freely, because they don't seem out of place, and Western media self-censor because they don't believe that we can stummach the real pictures... And they are probably right.
So it's right to show POWs being executed?

So is anything that comes out of Bush's mouth. And both el Prez' are so transparent that they would be amusing if they weren't directing military forces...

Now that's an outright lie/mistruth. When the Iraqi leaders get on TV and say we're not even in their land... then days later say we're retreating and and we have video showing we're there... that's a lie. When they say we're coming in an killing civilians, that's an outright lie. If we were going in and balls to the wall... Iraq would have been a parking lot a few days ago.
The only thing you could argue bush is lying about is the knowledge of Iraq's W'sMD. And that can't be proven until it's over. While they're lying every time they're on TV. Iraqi tv is OWNED BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! They have editorial control on the station, and they don't allow satellite tv in their contry... so it's complete propoganda.

-------------------------
And Shep still rules!

[EDIT]I was watching Discovery Times this afteroon... Saddam's first wife was his cousin... interesting... just an odd random fact for you.

C'jais

03-29-2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
The only thing you could argue bush is lying about is the knowledge of Iraq's W'sMD.

I recall him saying that Saddam has commited genocide on his people.

Which he hasn't.

A common mistake blown to extreme proportions.

Zygomaticus

03-29-2003, 10:05 PM

[EDIT]I was watching Discovery Times this afteroon... Saddam's first wife was his cousin... interesting... just an odd random fact for you.
It's not very odd in easter civilization. But their last names had to have been different...

Like, if I still believed in that, or we followed that, it would be okay for my son/daughter to marry my sister's daughter/son. (of course, once she marries and changes her last name) - and that's about as close as it gets...

pbguy1211

03-29-2003, 10:07 PM

um... isn't that... um... really not right? and can lead to retardation in the children? don't you need to be seperated more in the bloodline?

C'jais

03-29-2003, 10:09 PM

I was watching Discovery Times this afteroon... Saddam's first wife was his cousin... interesting... just an odd random fact for you.

Not at all interesting.

What has it do with anything?

So people are not allowed to marry someone of their own family?

C'jais

03-29-2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
um... isn't that... um... really not right? and can lead to retardation in the children? don't you need to be seperated more in the bloodline?

Need, based on which criteria?

If it's that there's a chance of a person's genetics becoming homozygotes, then yes, I follow you.

But many families practice this in the arab world. I'm thinking this was just another lame attempt at labeling Saddam the Antichrist, because he doesn't follow established western norms.

Get a job, get a hobby, get a life, and get down off your soap box... because no one is paying you any attention.

Honestly, what do you do all day where you can find the free time to post your daily manifesto?

pbguy1211

03-30-2003, 03:33 AM

oops, hit quote instead of edit... duh.

Breton

03-30-2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
That's quite the handle you have there Mr. Pot?
Let me introduce myself, I'm Mr. Kettle.

You are THE last one to talk here. Smartass.

Get a job, get a hobby, get a life, and get down off your soap box... because no one is paying you any attention.

Honestly, what do you do all day where you can find the free time to post your daily manifesto?

:lol: Looks like pbguy has been outsmarted... :D

pbguy1211

03-30-2003, 04:32 AM

No, just tired of someone's god complex

C'jais

03-30-2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
Get a job, get a hobby, get a life, and get down off your soap box... because no one is paying you any attention.

FYI, I do have a job, a life and one of my hobbies consists of talking to people like you over teh intarweb.

Sorry, but I find it very narrowminded to think that people are only allowed to marry someone outside the family, just because that's how it's done in your country.

pbguy1211

03-30-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by C'jais
FYI, I do have a job, a life and one of my hobbies consists of talking to people like you over teh intarweb.
No one, I repeat... NO ONE has the free time that you do to post as much (not to mention the length) that you do here.

Sorry, but I find it very narrowminded to think that people are only allowed to marry someone outside the family, just because that's how it's done in your country.

Fine... but you're judgemental for thinking you know something about me when you obviously don't. You know what happens when you assume. Like I said... drop the god complex. It's fairly obvious why you do so much talking with your keyboard for most of your opinions here would go over about as well as a fart in an opera house. I doubt anyone can stand to be around you socially.

C'jais

03-30-2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
No one, I repeat... NO ONE has the free time that you do to post as much (not to mention the length) that you do here.

Ok. If you say so.

Fine... but you're judgemental for thinking you know something about me when you obviously don't. You know what happens when you assume. Like I said... drop the god complex. It's fairly obvious why you do so much talking with your keyboard for most of your opinions here would go over about as well as a fart in an opera house. I doubt anyone can stand to be around you socially.

Yeah, and it's a shame your daddy was straight.

Please calm down. And let's return to the topic.

Zygomaticus

03-30-2003, 07:34 PM

No one, I repeat... NO ONE has the free time that you do to post as much (not to mention the length) that you do here.

:lol: And are you an international surveyor or something?

If that's really what you think, there's a lot that you don't know about...

Artoo

03-30-2003, 11:15 PM

pbguy, I suggest you step up off, cause he's producing some pretty sound arguments about things going on. Kudos that there's someone out there whose views are very different from mine, but I respect the arguments he puts forth.

There is nothing wrong with being "liberal." In fact, I challenge you to name a domestic program that has benefited society in America that wasn't initiated by a "liberal" adminstration.

EPA, by either Reagen or Nixon I cannot remember.

Looks like pbguy has been outsmarted...

For once I agree with you. :D

What was the thread about again? :D

pbguy1211

03-31-2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
:lol: Looks like pbguy has been outsmarted... :D

So because I have a different view on something from someone else... I've been outsmarted? okay... whatever...

Originally posted by Artoo
pbguy, I suggest you step up off, cause he's producing some pretty sound arguments about things going on
Read the next quote...

Originally posted by C'jais
Yeah, and it's a shame your daddy was straight.
Nice "arguement." That was uncalled for...

Originally posted by C'jais
Sorry, but I find it very narrowminded to think that people are only allowed to marry someone outside the family, just because that's how it's done in your country.

I find it very narrow minded of you that you think you know so much about "my" country. First of all the comment was made, not as fact, but under the idea that sex between cousins would produce retardation in possible children. Second of all, it could be (and in most places, IS) considered incest. How many cousins in your family are married? Not many? If any? Didn't think so.

Zygomaticus

03-31-2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
I find it very narrow minded of you that you think you know so much about "my" country. First of all the comment was made, not as fact, but under the idea that sex between cousins would produce retardation in possible children. Second of all, it could be (and in most places, IS) considered incest. How many cousins in your family are married? Not many? If any? Didn't think so.

Most places isn't this place. A culture different is not a culture wrong. It's just their culture. I know there's research that shows intermarrying like this reduces genetic variety and also produces not-so-healthy offspring, but it's been done for many centuries and it takes time to stop things like that.

If you want an example, I'll give you one. I'm from India, and my grandfather's daughter, and my grandfather's sister's son married. Big deal. Their sons are all fine with college degrees and work...

Being different isn't being wrong. Although, the disadvantages of this, when realized, could change things.

pbguy1211

03-31-2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by krkode
Most places isn't this place. A culture different is not a culture wrong. It's just their culture.

I never said it was "wrong"
But I do think there's a little something wrong in the fact that there are so many people in the world who one could be attracted too... and someone picks their cousin?! Get out more often... meet some more people. Come on now...

Dagobahn Eagle

03-31-2003, 08:32 PM

*Reads full page of flaming of c'jais*

C' jais is right, and this has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

I find it very narrow minded of you that you think you know so much about "my" country.

2. Most families in the States marry outside of their family. I'm right? Well, then he's right too. You find it narrow-minded when someone's not ignorant? Well, IMO, get used to it, because most people aren't ignorant.

Back on topic, maybe? What's all this got to do with sovereignity?

Zygomaticus

03-31-2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
I never said it was "wrong"
But I do think there's a little something wrong in the fact that there are so many people in the world who one could be attracted too... and someone picks their cousin?! Get out more often... meet some more people. Come on now...

It's not about attraction. Ever heard of "arranged marriages"? If you don't love the person your parents match you up with, you learn to love them. The world IS like that in some places. But stuff is different now...wester culture seeping through the gaps ;)

And my apologies. You did never say "wrong," you said, "not right" ;)

Sorry for taking this offtopic, Dago :)

SkinWalker

03-31-2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Artoo

EPA, by either Reagen or Nixon I cannot remember.

Very good! I was wondering if anyone would cite that one. Nixon had the EPA officially enacted during his administration. However, it has its roots in many of Roosevelts New Deal programs dealing with conservation and with the Kennedy/Johnson administrations' push for ecology awareness (remember Johnson's Great Society?). Nixon certainly was wise to jump on this platform in his campaign as it was very popular at the time.

I'm not saying that all progress came from liberal adminstrations, but I will say that sometimes conservative adminstrations had some liberal ideas! ;)

Originally posted by C'jais
Sorry, but I find it very narrowminded to think that people are only allowed to marry someone outside the family, just because that's how it's done in your country.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
2. Most families in the States marry outside of their family. I'm right? Well, then he's right too. You find it narrow-minded when someone's not ignorant? Well, IMO, get used to it, because most people aren't ignorant.
I'm more concerned with the idea of people possibly having messed up kids. I can clearly accept the fact that that's how it's done in some cultures... but I think that that's a fairly big risk to take... and i don't really agree with it. i dont really think it's worth it when there are so many people in the world.
And you may truely be shocked how many "ignorant" people there are in the world... Depending on ones views and definition of the word ignorant.

Zygomaticus

03-31-2003, 10:53 PM

I'm more concerned with the idea of people possibly having messed up kids. I can clearly accept the fact that that's how it's done in some cultures... but I think that that's a fairly big risk to take... and i don't really agree with it. i dont really think it's worth it when there are so many people in the world.

Well, sure you could go try and explain that to them. Places where this happens have VERY low literacy rates. It'll take a long time for people to be educated enough to know this stuff. Whether you agree with it or not, it'll stay that way for a while.

pbguy1211

04-01-2003, 02:34 AM

to each his/her own... and i'll leave it at that.

ShadowTemplar

04-01-2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by pbguy1211
So it's right to show POWs being executed?

That's called shadowboxing. And despite my username, it's not a dicipline that I support. POWs are being executed. So given that premise, it's the media's duty to show it. However, showing POWs in disgraceful positions is against the Geneva Convention, and therefore the former premise is overruled.

However, I didn't comment on whether it was right or not, I just said that Al Jazeera is lying a lot less than CNN.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So is anything that comes out of Bush's mouth. And both el Prez' are so transparent that they would be amusing if they weren't directing military forces...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that's an outright lie/mistruth. When the Iraqi leaders get on TV and say we're not even in their land... then days later say we're retreating and and we have video showing we're there... that's a lie. When they say we're coming in an killing civilians, that's an outright lie. If we were going in and balls to the wall... Iraq would have been a parking lot a few days ago.
The only thing you could argue bush is lying about is the knowledge of Iraq's W'sMD. And that can't be proven until it's over. While they're lying every time they're on TV. Iraqi tv is OWNED BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! They have editorial control on the station, and they don't allow satellite tv in their contry... so it's complete propoganda.

More shadowboxing. I did not say that Hussein wasn't lying all the time. I did not say that the Iraqi TV wasn't making pro-Hussein propaganda. I did say however that el Prez is lying every time he's in the hot seat. And I did say that no American sender isn't spewing out pro-war propaganda.

Now, the second of my actual statements is proved right here (www.dr.dk) by simple comparison between the aforementioned sender and the CNN. The former statement can be summed up as follows:

GOD is with the US in this war.

The AXIS OF EVIL.

The war will be waged to liberate the Iraqi people and to ensure the continued safety of the US.

Never have I heard a greater load of BS. And never has anyone shadowboxed me so on these boards. Even the Creationists in the Swamp didn't go that far (although maybe it wasn't for lack of trying).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EDIT]I was watching Discovery Times this afteroon... Saddam's first wife was his cousin... interesting... just an odd random fact for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not very odd in easter civilization. But their last names had to have been different...

Like, if I still believed in that, or we followed that, it would be okay for my son/daughter to marry my sister's daughter/son. (of course, once she marries and changes her last name) - and that's about as close as it gets...

You are in DK, I believe. Not that I'd want to, but...

um... isn't that... um... really not right?

Can't see what's wrong with it. Unless you are some overzealous fundamentalist with a religion that forbids it. Because certainly there can be no rational objection against it.

and can lead to retardation in the children? don't you need to be seperated more in the bloodline?

It's far enough removed.

I never said it was "wrong"

Hmm... Seing these threads in one piece certainly adds perspective...

Roosevelts New Deal

The one that was ruled to be against the Constitution (when it had already had its effect and it was free to score a few cheap political points on it)?

Now, getting this thread back to topic (is it even possible anymore, or has it degenerated into mindless mud-throwing?):

I believe that the Nation-State construction is inadeqate to fulfill the demands of the future. I think that in a global world we need a global government, that, mind this as it is an important point, even the strongest defer to. However there is little or no chance of the dismantlement of the Nation-State in one swoop, and we certainly don't have a functioning global government, so I think that the best alternative is to work towards increasingly larger unions and trade/defence pacts, that ensure fairness (ok, that might be too great a demand) and which, in time, should be merged into a one-world government.

Crazy_dog no.3

04-01-2003, 11:12 AM

Yeah! World Government... *goes off to make thread*

SkinWalker

04-01-2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
The one that was ruled to be against the Constitution (when it had already had its effect and it was free to score a few cheap political points on it)?

Yeah... that's the one! :p

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
I believe that the Nation-State construction is inadeqate to fulfill the demands of the future. I think that in a global world we need a global government, that, mind this as it is an important point, even the strongest defer to.

It's interesting to note that NGO's (non-governmental organizations) continually gain significant power within the world. Some corporations even earn more than the the GDP's of many nations. Whether we like it or not, global consermerism will likely be the driving force to unifying the world.

In the 20th Century (perhaps the 19th as well), corporations have been responsible for many rebellions, uprisings and wars. The Shell Oil debacle in Nigeria is a good example. As is the Somoza regime in Nicaragua.

As corporations continue to pour more money into the politics of my country, I forsee less governmental restriction on corporations and more corporate restriction on government.

ShadowTemplar

04-02-2003, 05:24 AM

Lol. That's easily solved, Skin:

Ban secret political donations...

The former (or was it the current?) German Chansellor (almost) got his butt busted because of secret political donations, which is illegal in Germany.

pbguy1211

04-02-2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Lol. That's easily solved, Skin:

Ban secret political donations...

While it's a nice idea... the problem is it'll never happen. Here they aren't really secret, but you don't hear about them...